Revisionism (Spain)

Revisionism is a term applied by the spanish far-left which emerged in the late 1990s and is applied to a group of historiographic theories related to the recent history of Spain. They are supposedly held together by posing a challenge to what is presented as a generally accepted, orthodox view on the history of the Second Republic and the Civil War. The term is used as stigmatization or abuse, and in usage it is paired with charges of incompetence at best or ill will at worst. Historians named revisionists reject the label and claim that no orthodox, canonical view of the recent past exists. Both groups blame each other for pursuing a hidden political agenda; those dubbed revisionists are branded conservatives or post-Francoists, their opponents are branded "progressists" and far-left and left-wingers.

Until the late 1990s in Spain the term "revisionismo histórico" was applied to various historiographic debates abroad, often though not always related to Nazism.[1] It was seldom used against the local background and its denotation could have varied, e.g. in 1988 the expression was employed to stand for ideology-driven, zealous, Manichean and militant anti-Francoist historiography.[2] According to scholars who later confronted perceived revisionism, this general setting changed in the mid-1990s; the new government of José María Aznar allegedly launched a bid to revise the dominant historiographic view of the recent past.[3] In administrative terms the scheme was reportedly embodied e.g.[4] in Plan de Mejora de la Enseñanza,[5] a scheme aimed at re-design of the school curriculum, in 1997 proposed to the Cortes and eventually rejected.[6] In parallel the Right-wing administration allegedly mounted a public-discourse counter-offensive,[7] which climaxed in "Operación Moa".[8] Its supposed result was commercial success of 3 books[9] which appeared on the market between 1999 and 2003; written by an amateur historian Pio Moa, they focused on the Second Republic and the Civil War.[10]

Moa's books triggered adverse response. It was first embodied in a 1999 manifesto titled Combate por la historia; signed by historians, writers and public figures, it was the first to apply the term "revisionistas" to a group of unnamed Spanish historians, charged with distortions and falsifications.[11] In the early 21st century the name filtered into newspapers[12] and the phenomenon became a widely discussed topic, especially that also other books charged with revisionism were selling very well.[13] According to some scholars, the second term of the Aznar government reinforced the revisionist efforts,[14] expressed e.g. as another education plan advanced by Real Academia de Historia.[15] The anti-revisionist backlash climaxed in 2005-2006 as 3 books produced by professional historians and edited by Alberto Reig Tapia and Francisco Espinosa Maestre;[16] the volumes supposedly definitely dismantled the revisionist Moa narrative and at the time they were thought to have terminated the debate.[17]

Instead of dying out, after 2005 the debate on revisionism flamed on and was brought to another level. To some extent sustained by adoption of Ley de la Memoria Historica in 2007,[18] the discussion transformed when a group of professional historians challenged the anti-revisionists; from that moment onwards the conflict was no longer between amateurs[19] and scholars, but between the scholars themselves. It reached another milestone in 2010-2011, the years when Manuel Álvarez Tardío and Roberto Villa García published a general work on the Second Republic and when RAH-edited Diccionario Biográfico Español published a biography of Francisco Franco.[20] The latter caused heated controversy mostly in popular discourse; according to many, the biography was revisionist and scandalous. The former had a low-profile but more lasting effect, and became a negative point of reference for many works confronting perceived revisionist historiography.[21] The discussion on revisionism kept escalating and assumed increasingly militant tone. The next milestone was reached when in 2014 Stanley G. Payne published his biography of Franco (co-authored by Jesús Palacios Tapias); at that point some concluded that revisionism was embraced by the world's most distinguished Hispanists.[22] Since then the debate has reached an unprecedented level and spilled over to global historiography.[23] It is also reflected in 2018 debates related to proposal of a new Ley de Memoria Histórica.[24]

Some scholars who confront the perceived revisionist tide claim that the term "revisionism" as such is not by default deprecatory[25] and some authors considered champions of anti-revisionism declare themselves revisionists, naming skepticism a recommended historiographic approach.[26] They note that authors who strive to re-write history of Spain of the 20th century do not actually deserve the name of "revisionist" and should rather be called manipulators and liars; they are dubbed "self-proclaimed revisionists".[27] Others reserve the term for intellectuals like de Felice, Nolte, Lachmann or Furet and underline that the likes of Moa or Vidal are nowhere near their stature.[28] There are authors who agree that the name has been abused[29] and label their opponents rather as "pseudo-revisionists".[30] Finally, some scholars distinguish between "revisionism", the term reserved for amateurish writings of Moa or others, and "neo-revisionism", the term applied to scientifically grounded works pursuing similar yet not identical views.[31] Finally, few authors note that historiographic revision is generally welcome and needed, but "revisionism" by default stands for revision based on manipulation and has no place in the academic realm.[32]

Most authors who rebuke attempts to distort and falsify history do not go into such detail and refer to "revisionismo histórico" and "revisionistas". The name is supposed to denote an attempt to revise a generally accepted, proven scientific version of recent Spanish history and is applied to both "historiadores coyunturales" and "historiadores profesionales";[33] recently the term is applied not only to professionals in historiographic science but also to scholars who until their alleged "enigmatic evolution" had been global icons of scientific Hispanism.[34] Sometimes in such cases the term is qualified as perfectly respectable scientific "revisionismo amable",[35] yet usually no such distinction is made. At times revisionism is divided into purist and comparative branches.[36] Sometimes two labels associated are "denialism"[37] and "negationism",[38] as supposedly the authors in question deny or negate generally accepted and supposedly proven historiographic concepts.

Though authors classified as revisionists are typically charged with nurturing post-Francoist, pro-Francoist, neo-Francoist, quasi-Francoist or plainly Francoist sentiments, some effort is made to distinguish between "Francoist historiography" and "revisionist historiography". The former is deemed actually orthodox in its Francoist set of old-style schemes and traits,[39] immune to discourse, straight continuation of pre-1975 narrative and represented by authors of older generation like Ricardo de la Cierva, Vicente Palacio Atard and Fernando Vizcaíno Casas.[40] The latter is deemed to be a confrontational response to historiographic vision generally agreed after 1975. It is at times pictured as a school represented by a new generation of authors[41] often armed with modern scientific tools, some of these authors skilled if not excelling – this is, until they embraced revisionism[42] - in historiographic craft.[43] It is only recently that in course of increasingly heated debate less and less attention is paid to tell Francoist historians from revisionist historians. Both groups might be bundled together, many threads and motives are supposed to prove continuity of their historiographic vision, and revisionism is painted as "almost 'Blue'".[44] Some critics of revisionism go even further and claim that it is actually an orthodox Francoist reading of history.[45]

There are some 10-15 books which come up repeatedly as negative points of reference of the anti-revisionist discourse, though further volumes might be referred less frequently or even occasionally. They roughly fall into two different categories. One is composed of loose essays, formatted for non-specialized reader and deprived of back matter, which usually forms part of scientific apparatus; this is the case of volumes published by Moa, Vidal, Martín Rubio or others. Another one is composed of fully fledged historiographic studies aimed for more experienced if not professional audience; this is the case of books published by Álvarez Tardío, Villa García, del Rey Reguillo or others. Works from both categories most frequently charged with revisionism are listed below, precedence given to volumes which stand most prominently as alleged key vehicles of revisionist narrative.

The debate is centred on the Second Republic and to some extent on the Civil War, though occasionally also Restoration period[75] or Francoism[76] might come under scrutiny. A thesis initially advanced by anti-revisionist scholars was that after 1975 "mayoritario sector"[77] of Spanish historiography agreed a propaganda-free opinion on the Republic[78] and that in post-Francoist Spain there was no ideologically-motivated "war of historians";[79] revisionists were marked as these who tried to open such a war. Recently this position has changed and some anti-revisionists admit that indeed there might be some "areas of contention"[80] and controversies,[81] embodied in a debate between these who denounce "false orthodox canon" and these who denounce "revisionism".[82] However, many authors keep flagging revisionism as a social rather than historiographic phenomenon.[83]

Alleged revisionists are supposedly consumed by desire to defame the Republic;[84] their key thesis allegedly advanced is that the Civil War was caused by the Left.[85] This underlying bottom message is reportedly sustained by a number of more detailed concepts. One critic listed them in an ironic "decalogue of the revisionist": 1) pretend scientific neutrality; 2) disregard "structural history"; 3) try to demythologize the Republic; 4) present the Republic as exclusion; 5) blame the Left for radical revolutionism; 6) deny CEDA’s role of a FascistTrojan horse; 7) claim that Bienio negro was not so black; 8) underline that violence was equal on both sides; 9) criticize memoria historica as having nothing to do with history; 10) glorify the transition, made possible by Francoism.[86]

Historians called revisionists are typically refused scientific credentials,[87] denied both to relatively young scholars[41] and to academic Hispanists who established their position during decades.[88] Some are presented as interested in selling books rather than in historical rigor.[89] The charge raised most frequently is that instead of establishing the truth their aim is to dismantle "liberal-left myths".[90] Since they are not honest[91] they do not qualify as scientists,[92] even though they very much pretend so[93] and constantly raise claims to a myth[94] of scientific "objectivity"[95] and "impartiality",[84] qualities which they are also denied.[95] The revisionists reportedly lack "modus operandi propiamente historiográfico",[45] fail "to provide a balanced assessment",[96] demonstrate bias,[97] distort history,[98] resort to "pseudo-scientific" methods, manipulation[99] and deliberate falsification,[100] create new myths,[39] tend to be hysterical[101] and cultivate their own "pedagogics of hate".[102] An index of manipulative techniques, allegedly employed by the revisionists, contains 5 key methods: 1) use of logical fallacies;[103] 2) relativisation, reductionism and negationism; 3) mystification; 4) psychologization[104] and 5) mythologization.[105]

Rally of Falange in contemporary Spain

The scholars dubbed revisionists are "in the service of the political aims of the present",[106] their goal identified as to "whitewash the history of the Spanish right"[107] and to cover up Nationalist crimes.[108] They are linked to a range of political options and might be dubbed "historiographic Right",[109] "conservatives",[101] "neo-Conservatives",[110] "theo-conservatives",[111] "ultraconservatives",[112] "conservative/neo-Francoist",[101] "pro-Francoists",[95] "filofranquistas",[113] "regime's panegyrists and ideologized 'historians'",[114] "Francoist apologists"[115] and "authoritarians".[116] They are charged with exalting "pure Francoism",[117] sustaining "canon neofranquista",[41] "peddling discredited historical narrative",[118] "repackaging the legends of Francoist ‘historiography’",[119] serving "re-fried Francoist fables",[118] "almost 'Blue'" myths[120] and even nurturing "filonazismo".[121] The charges are supposed proven by political membership of some historians,[122] their publications in right-wing periodicals[123] or publishing houses,[124] links to right-wing institutions,[125] their set of "ideological bedmates"[126] or who they dined with.[127] Authoritarian sentiments might be suggested also by other associations, e.g. in case of Payne it was noted he is based in Wisconsin, the home state of senator McCarthy.[90] At times their presence in public discourse is cast against the background of Holocaust denial and revisionism being punishable by law in countries like Germany.[128][129]

Authors referred to as revisionists do not adopt a uniform stand. Some implicitly accept the label since they openly format their works as challenge to alleged "myths", reportedly prevailing in historiography.[148] Some joined the anti-revisionist campaign and turned from iconic revisionists to iconic anti-revisionists.[149] Some ignore the term and do not take part in direct polemics.[150] Some assumed a combative position and in numerous articles, press statements and books they confront their opponents. There are authors dubbed revisionists who deny having anything in common with other "revisionists" and treat them in a derogatory manner,[151] there are authors who admit sharing similar views.[152] In general, they question existence of an orthodox, generally accepted historiographic vision of the Republic[153] and claim that historiography is about debate and plurality of opinions.[154] On this basis they maintain that no such thing as revisionism exists,[155] that the term is artificial construction which bundles together various scholars and opinions, and that by means of similar arbitrary judgments even icons of anti-revisionism like Preston might be counted in.[156] A somewhat sympathetic term alternative to "revisionism" is "Moaist revolution".[157]

There is no name commonly applied to scholars who criticize supposed revisionism, though some coined the term "contrarrevisionismo".[158] They are at times referred to as "pequeño grupo de historiadores" who intend to monopolize the discourse by means of social, political and infrastructural network they had built.[159] To this end, they allegedly attempt to stigmatize all these who do not comply as pseudo-scientists, busy with dirty political agenda and not deserving a place in academic discourse. The anti-revisionist authors are presented as driven by their own prejudice,[160] ideologically motivated,[161] "politically committed"[162] and named "small group of historians determined to defend at all costs the vision of a sacred and ‘heroic’ republican democracy".[163] Their supposed political sympathies are clearly described as Left-wing, with references to "historiografía ‘progresista’",[164] "nueva [progressist] religión civil",[165] "anti-Fascist historiography",[166] "political correctness", "post-Marxist ideology",[165] "militant history"[167] and "anti-Francoist, progressive historians".[168] Their principal objective is described as further mythologization of the Republic; this stand is ironically referred by remarks that "Republic was not a Little Red Riding Hood".[169]

ridiculing counter-revisionists: the Right and the Spanish Republic?

Some scholars dubbed revisionists take charges of their supposed Francoist sympathies very seriously. They demand from periodicals which published such opinions the right to reply and require individuals advancing such claims to retract them;[170] these demands usually produce no result except claims that by "threatening quasi-legal language" they intend to administratively limit free speech.[101] They also claim having never endorsed the regime and diagnose that though there might have been a modest post-Francoist revival in some sectors of the Spanish media, all professional historians remained immune.[171] They reverse the charges and maintain that it is rather the "contrarrevisionistas" who demonstrate a Francoist heritage: unable of detaching science from politics, they reportedly view history in Manichean terms, refuse to acknowledge more advanced analysis, and got locked in a schematic bi-polar logic.[172] These dubbed revisionists attempt to reverse also other charges directed at them and similarly denounce their opponents in terms who they dine with and where they publish,[173] e.g. by noting that one of the most militant anti-revisionists is related to a Trotskyite periodical.[174] They ridicule the pose of moral superiority, reportedly assumed by those lambasting revisionism,[175] and agonize about their alleged "personal smears".[176]

^ Giovanni C. Cattini, Historical revisionism. The reinterpretation of history in contemporary political debate, [in:] Transfer 06 (2011), p. 32, and many other similar claims made by other authors. Also historians who try to stay neutral in the revisionist-antirevisionist debate and strive to take equidistant position versus both camps adhere to the view that Aznar's government intended to impose a right-wing historiographical perspective, see e.g. Antonio Cazorla-Sanchez, Memory and Cultural History of the Spanish Civil War, Boston 2014, ISBN9789004259966, pp. 31, 38.

^ the most popular of them, Los mitos de la guerra civil, sold at least in 300,000 copies in Spain, see here. The result was typical for best-selling novels rather than for historiographic works, the latter sold at best in tens of thousands of copies. Mitos was also translated into a number of foreign languages and re-published in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2014 and 2018

^even junior students with no previous scientific contribution do not hesitate to assert that since the late 1990s Payne's "credibility started to decline", that he turned into "almost an apologist of the Franco regime", that his stature "has plummeted from a respectful and significant historian to an almost apologist", and that due to his "propaganda-like work" Payne "has no objectivity"; the MA hopeful then proceeds to lecture Payne and other scholars how a properly written historiographic work should look like, Ascenett Martinez-Lopez, The Spanish Predisposition. Biases within the Historiography and Memory of the Spanish Civil War [MA thesis University of Newcastle], Newcastle 2017, pp. 8 and passim. The thesis was supervised by one of the anti-revisionists, Alejandro Quiroga

^for the draft version of the law see here. The authors claim that new regulations are "moral duty" towards victims of the war and Francoism. The opponents claim that the proposal advances "soviet-style regulations". Many historians dubbed revisionists (Payne, Martin Rubio, Palacios, Togores, Seidman, Gonzalez Cuevas, Moa) signed a protest letter against the draft, see La Gaceta 15.03.2018, available here

^ the reported difference is that neo-revisionism does not advance catastrophist perspective, and that it falls into 2 streams: "purist" (which assaults the Republic altogether) and "comparative" (which denigrates the Republic by comparing its miserable output with results of the peaceful transition of the 1970s, Malefakis 2011

^ see Chris Ealham, "Myths" and the Spanish Civil War: Some Old, Some Exploded, Some Clearly Borrowed and Some Almost "Blue", [in:] Journal of Contemporary History 42/2 (2007), pp. 365-376. The blue color is supposed to indicate Francoist leaning, as the Francoist Falange sported blue shirts

^ which allegedly renders the Spanish historiographic debate different from the German one, compared to ideologically-driven "war of historians", Julian Casanova, Republic, Civil War and Dictatorships: The Peculiarities of Spanish History, [in:] Journal of Contemporary History 52/1 (2017), p. 149

^ one scholars lists 5 "areas of contention": explanation for the failure of the Second Republic, 2) responsibilities for the Civil War, 3) reasons for Franco’s victory, 4) nature and size of repression during the war and afterwards, 5) Franco’s role in modernization of Spain, Angel Viñas, On the 80th Anniversary of the Spanish Civil War. [in:] Journal of Contemporary History 52/1 (2017), p. 123

^ the reasons supposedly responsible for emergence of revisionism in Spain are 1) use of the past for political militancy of the left, 2) generational change, 3) new international background, especially the fall of communism,, 4) idealisation of the Republic; 5) partial militancy of Movimiento para la Recuperación de la Memoria Histórica, Moradiellos 2009, pp. 17-25

^"objective" history is ridiculed as a "nineteenth-century belief", made outdated by "hermeneutics, epistemology and their implications for historiography", Chris Ealham, “Cry babies” or authoritarians? An investigation into the inability of Spain’s historical revisionists to accept criticism [working paper in progress], p. 1, available here

^ the intention to cover up Nationalist crimes is allegedly posed as attempt not to "re-open the wounds", Robledo 2015, p. 2; the same declaration is held tantamount to refusal to investigate, incompatible with historian’s craft, Anderson 2017, p. 130, Maria Thomas, Political Violence in the Republican Zone of Spain during the Spanish Civil War: Evolving Historiographical Perspectives, [in:] Journal of Contemporary History 52/1 (2017), p. 147

^for a concise, scholarly, recently published, all-round "orthodox" vision of the Republic and the Civil War see Julian Casanova, A Short History of the Spanish Civil War, New York 2013, ISBN9780857733047; it was re-printed a number of times, with recent edition in 2019

^for a concise, scholarly, recently published, all-round "revisionist" vision of the Republic and the Civil War see Stanley G. Payne, The Spanish Civil War, London 2012, ISBN9781139536240; it was re-printed a number of times, with recent edition in 2019

^for a review from allegedly "revisionist" perspective see Julius Ruiz, Seventy Years On: Historians and Repression During and After the Spanish Civil War, [in:] Journal of Contemporary History 44/3 (2009), pp. 449–472

^ the case of Edward Malefakis, initially charged with revisionism. Before death he vehemently condemned "franquismo-moaismo"

^the case of Stanley G. Payne. Though he has been charged with revisionism at least since 2007, he has been steering clear of revisionism-related debates. He has not resigned from scientific council of Journal of Contemporary History, the periodical which a number of times published contributions which deny him scientific credentials and allude to his alleged Francoist sympathies. His only voice on revisionism identified is that "para los historiadores de izquierda del siglo XXI hay una verdad inamovible, que no se puede cambiar y nadie puede cuestionar. Han adquirido la misma postura que la antigua Iglesia católica. Son los nuevos católicos españoles del siglo XVII", Cesar Cervera, Stanley G. Payne: «La resistencia de España es impresionante, los españoles lo han soportado todo», [in:] ABC 22.02.17

^ one scholar notes that since Preston wrote a highly critical book on Santiago Carillo he might be classified as the one who unduly shifts attention from Nationalist crimes away to the Republican ones, Rey Reguillo 2015, p. 310

^ Chris Ealham used to publish in International Review, a periodical issues by Socialist Workers’ Party, Roberto Villa García, The Second Republic: Myths and Realities, [in:] Journal of Contemporary History 51/2 (2016), p. 423

^ Bernat Montesinos 2007, p. 54, González Cuevas 2008. Position of Reig Tapia as chief anti-revisinist is secured by 3 volumes he published, all dedicated exclusively to dismantle revisionist myths and published between 2008 and 2017

^ in the 1999 Combate manifiesto he was counted among "mandarines de la Historia Oficial", Moradiellos 2009, p. 11. Later he assumed anti-revisionist stand. In 2017 he posed as impartial scholar in-between these fighting "false orthodox canon" and "revisionism", yet Journal of Contemporary History published his piece among others assaulting the revisionists and Casanova placed himself among those who "have proved" that "the Civil War was not caused by the Republic", Casanova 2017, p. 149. He also admitted that to him, revisionist authors are neo-Francoists, Yo no los llamo revisionistas, sino neofranquistas, [in:] menéame service, available here. See also Julian Casanova: una intrevista, [in:] antoncastro service, available here

^see his damning review of scholars considered revisionists in Alejandro Quiroga, Book Reviews, [in:] Journal of Contemporary History 43/3 (2013), pp. 519-522, and the response of Rey Reguillo 2015, p. 305

^his highly critical account of Francoist historiography in Michael Richards, After the Civil War. Making Memory and Re-making Spain since 1936, Cambridge 2013, ISBN9780521728188, also Michael Richards, The limits of quantification: Francoist repression and historical methodology, [in:] Hispania Nova 7 (2007). Richards has not explicitly taken part in debate on revisionism, yet is fairly often quoted by anti-revisionists as an example of high-quality, rigorous work, and confronted with allegedly low-quality revisionist works, compare e.g. Reig Tapia 2015, p. 63

^for her chief critique of revisionism see Helen Graham, From memory wars to history wars: revisionism in the twenty-first-century Academy in Spain, [in:] Helen Graham (ed.), Interrogating Francoism: History and Dictatorship in Twentieth-Century Spain, London 2015, ISBN9781472576361, pp. 10-13. In what other scholars describe as "politically uncompromising introduction", Graham allegedly "launches a wide attack on many Spanish historians" and "she divides us [historians] into just two groups: people who think like her - which I must assume to be both progressive and true democrats - and the more or less openly pro-Franco "revisionists"', Antonio Cazorla Sanchez, Interrogating Francoism [review], [in:] Journal of Modern History 90 (2018), pp. 220-221. For her positive lecture see also e.g. Helen Graham, Breve Historia de la Guerra Civil, Madrid 2006, ISBN9788467020151; she is quoted by chief anti-revisionist as a model of unbiased synthesis and juxtaposed against unreliable revisionist production, Ealham 2007, pp. 365-376

^ emphasis on parallels between Francoist Spain, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy as demonstrated by "Casanova, Gomez and Marco is an uncomfortable reality for the ‘truth’ of the revisionists", Ealham 2012, p. 201

^see e.g. Riesco Roche 2015, where the author intends to prove that in their biography of Franco both Payne and Palacios consciously disregarded historiographic works which did not fit their pre-adopted thesis

^historian of an older generation, Arranz is presented as intellectual master to some young revisionists, see e.g. Robledo 2015, pp. 5-7. See also Ealham 2012, p. 197, Quiroga 2013, p. 520

^see notes on Stradling allegedly using fallacy arguments and taking part in "revisionist crusade", Richards 2007, p. 10. Stradling countered that "a diminishing band of historians defends the reputation of the ‘beautiful maiden’ who symbolised the least honest democracy in modern history", Rob Stradling, Review: The Spanish Second Republic Revisited: From Democratic Hopes to Civil War (1931–1936), [in:] The English Historical Review 130/542 (2015), p. 237

^Journal published the most vehemently anti-revisionist article which appeared in the scientific realm, penned by Ealham in 2012. It took demands backed by legal arguments before historians lambasted in Ealham's review were allowed to reply, though their responses were paired with one more article, which suggested that the authors did not realize what "the duty of the historian" is, Carmichael 2016, p. 438. A year later Journal allowed double that amount of space to a new spate of anti-revisionist articles. Moreover, the chief editor of Journal dismissed the revisionists as not adhering to the point and discussed their work against the background of revisionism being illegal in Germany, Evans 2017, p. 119